I've only played Wallenstein, but it's essentially the same game played on a different map. I've heard some people say that they like Wally better, and some say that they like Shogun better.

I can't comment on the specific play time of Shogun -- Wally runs in the 2-3 hour range usually.

Based on your description of the sort of games that you like (not far off from my tastes -- I also like Game Of Thrones, Samurai Swords and Vinci. . .not to mention Guitar Hero!), I'd guess that this one is right up your alley.

I feel that the Wallenstein system (and Shogun) is great because once people know a few rules (not many considering other games), most of the time is spent strategizing your moves. Also, combat is quick and fun with the battle tower.

I've not met many players who didn't like Wallenstein. I haven't had the opportunity to introduce Shogun to many yet.

There was a thread about the length of Shogun brought up today. The main reason for downtime is planning your moves. If people are taking too long doing that, simply give them a time limit to complete them. You should definitely get a game done in 2.5-3 hours. Two hours is possible once people know what they're doing.

Man, this has about sealed the deal...working on a large order right now, and I think this is going to top it off.

One thing I noticed from the images is that everyone has an individual leader card depicting different shoguns. However, this game does NOT have variable player powers, is this correct? (In other words, no shogun has a natural advantage in one area or another?)

I tend to like games with variable player powers, but this isn't a make-or-break facet in this instance.

Is the game guilty of "province shift" to score points--in other words, can you score points by holding ground? Building up a territory to hold it? Or is territory grind the only way to score? I'm not really clear on that one.

Players get one point for each province that they own. Additional points come from buying buildings to place in your province and then having more of a particular type of building in a region of like provinces than anyone else. This is really where the majority of your points come from. It's sort of an area majority concept. Players get one point for each building plus additional points ( one to three points) for having majorities.

Now If you properly use your armies, it is possible to gain control of a province where someone has already built some buildings. By taking over this province, you now own those buildings thereby possibly giving yourself the majority of a type of building within that region.

So conquering another province will give you an extra point for owning the province but it is really the buildings in that province that you want to get so that you have a majority of that building there by giving you points for the majority and more importantly taking those points from your opponent.

I love games with maps and conquest, where the rules aren't so dense they get in the way, but there's room for combat and expansion.

It's not really a game of conquest. Expansion is limited to the point where you don't even think about it per se. Each player may only acquire rice from one province each season. This rice has to feed your units for all provinces. Once you get to a point where you don't have enough rice to feed everyone, you get revolts. So the attacks you do execute are few and tactical.

Furthermore, there are only 2 possible attack actions each round, and only 6 actual rounds. So you can only attack 12 times in the entire game, and you won't usually use them all for attacking.

Wallenstein/Shogun is a game of building 3 different kinds of buildings in provinces you control, trying to get more than other players. Combat is used to acquire key provinces for the purposes of acquiring rice and gold, or to deny those from the opponents.

So if you picture the game being about "taking your pile of armies and taking out those 5 territories", you might be disappointed.

Shogun is not RISK and it certainly is nothing like A&A (the only comparable game I've played to Samurai Swords which may or may not be like A&A)

However, I have played the game at 3 and 4 players and plays great with both. The map scales for the amount of players and I think they have done a fantastic job with my experience so far. A victory is based on several factors in Shogun:

You get points for the amount of provinces you own.How many buildings you haveHaving majorities of buildings in regions (there are three types of buildings)

You can't dominate the game with attackingYou can't dominate the game by building.

You definitely have to balance the two to succeed in the game.

On my first playings I was amazed at the amount of subtle strategies there were and while no doubt experience will uncover some of the better ones I would say there is a decent amount of meat on this game that you will play for a while before you could think about getting bored.

With the revolts from the farmers it adds another tricky element to the game and no doubt that the cube tower adds a level to this game that is found nowhere else except Wallenstein. I was somewhat suspect that the battles would prove obvious outcomes but we had lots of surprises. At one point I wanted to wittle away an opponents armies so I attacked him with a province I didn't really care about. It was my 3 attacking cubes to his 7 and I won! It came out 3-2 and while I don't know how 5 of his cubes got stuck on the way down, this is what happened. As a result I kept the province I was planning on abandoning and got a new one which meant 2 more points at the end of the game. Considering I won it by 1 pt I'd say it was a pritty good move... eheheheh... I can definitely say the tower is more "fun" then dice but to each his own...

I'd also like to say the drafting mechanic for the setup of the game works great!!!

Anyways, I can't reccomend this game enough.

It is a euro through and through. There are battles but it is not the main mechanic of the game but adds just the right amount of zest to make this a tense and extremely fun game.

So if you picture the game being about "taking your pile of armies and taking out those 5 territories", you might be disappointed.

Certainly, in fact one of the key elements here is that it HAS combat and yet territorial development is just as appealing.

I like the building aspect of Amun Re, for example, in terms of developing areas with temples and farmers. In that game, of course, you cannot use conquest to take a particularly nice province from your opponent.

Your comments have in fact strengthened my opinions on getting the game--I have a lot of games that are "pile of armies crush yours", and this looks like a great chance to both broaden my own horizons as well as those of my usual heavily-Amerigame-lovin' group.

There are no special abilities associated with a certain Warlord (or player color). There are five special abilities to choose from each turn, but they are not associated with specific Warlords, the player who grabs them first (bids the most for turn order) gets them for the turn.

Let me add my voice to the chorus that recommends Shogun.I played Wallenstein online for almost a year and really liked it.But now, with a copy of Shogun,I am even more sure that I love the game.

It's like a resource management game,masquerading as an area control game,like Risk.Lots of decisions, uncertainty over what the right choices are and never enough time to get done all that you need to do, Shogun is rich in these sorts of conundrums,and plays brilliantly.

My feeling is that it is best with four or five (you don't have to remove provinces from play as you do with three players).I think a skilled group can play in 2-2.5 hrs, a first game or two will take about 3-3.5 with rules explanations.

When you first drop cubes into the tower with people who have never played, it's something like magic...

I love games with maps and conquest, where the rules aren't so dense they get in the way, but there's room for combat and expansion.

Maps, check. conquest...depending on your style of play. it's NOT a real wargame, and certainly doesn't have that much armed conflict like in, say, AGoT. But the combat element is there, and a lot of expansion is necessary as well.

franklincobb wrote:

I'm also a fan of resource management. I really like this theme, to boot.

REsource management is the heart of the game. And the theme is, well good but nothing too deep.

franklincobb wrote:

I'm also interested in Euro games with war themes (or vice versa--war games with Euro mechanics)

This game perfecly fits this description.

franklincobb wrote:

Does this play well across the entire range of players? Am I going to *need* a certain amount (this is the only knock against A Game of Thrones) to get a good game of this going?

It weorks well with 4-5, didn't try with 3 yet, but there are no balance issues like in AGoT so don't worry about this.

franklincobb wrote:

How long does a game run, assuming you get your first few out of the way? Can five play in two hours, as I've seen? This is a BIG plus, if this is true.

2,5 hours in the first run, after it can be over in 2 hours no problem.

In the wonderful game, Bonaparte at Marengo, this is how to get nasty Frenchies out of a village.

I just played Shogun for the first time myself, this past Tuesday. In the sense that "I can't define a wargame but I know one when I see one", Shogun isn't a wargame. That said, it almost feels like Power Grid or Puerto Rico, but with combat. That is, you have meaty choices to make, and the fact that some choices may involve direct conflict is icing on the cake. So, if the idea of a heavy euro that adds combat appeals to you, you made the right choice. I know I can't wait to play again.

Just another couple of comments for others reading this thread. (I know that you are sold on it.)

1) Like many Euros, this game is simple enough that you can quickly explain it in 15 minutes or so. It doesn't take a lot of time to learn. My feeling is that first time players can do fairly well in this game. It's not one of those games where as a newbie you feel like you're going to get smoked, and you're really only playing to learn the rules. I think that this is important if you have a large number of people that you play with, or have so many games that they only get occasional play.

2) This is a philosophical point, but I think that the resource managment aspect is more important than the warfare aspect. To me this is more of an area control game than a pure wargame. If you base your strategy heavily on warfare, I believe that you might end up doing more poorly than others.

Also the game starts with a significant number of neutral countries so your aggression doesn't need to be targeted against other players.

2) This is a philosophical point, but I think that the resource managment aspect is more important than the warfare aspect. To me this is more of an area control game than a pure wargame. If you base your strategy heavily on warfare, I believe that you might end up doing more poorly than others.

Absolutely correct!

If you approach it as a wargame, you're doomed to failure. It's mangement first with conflict only when it's necessary...